NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that many branches of Christianity have their own model, but I think I made one( i think i made it up) that fits better.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/mymodeloftrinity.jpg

What do you theologians think? Any merit to it? Its showing that the God head is not three seperate entities, but just showing how we can make three different names up for what God does.

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

I'm going to put you on my ignore list. Feel privelaged. You are the first one to really get on my nerves. You have a full and prosperous life sir. :)

Meh. I like the cherry pie analogy better.

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

Dude, not cool.

Neither is the OP's screen breaking model, do you think you could fix that Zilam?

Dude, not cool.

Neither is the OP's screen breaking model, do you think you could fix that Zilam?


Sorry. :)

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

While I disagree with a great many Christians, I don't feel the need to mock them unless they are demonstrably stupid. I feel the same way about atheists.

If God can be a Trinity, why not even more? Why limit Himself to three?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious. Why three? Is it possible that these three are the only three we know about or that have been revealed to us? Is it possible we're missing more manifestations?

Heck, maybe it was just a mistranslation in the Bible. Who knows?

I tend to think that we all embody the spirit of God and thus the Trinity is inherently flawed, for God is in reality a Multitude of Us. But that's personal opinion.

If God can be a Trinity, why not even more? Why limit Himself to three?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious. Why three? Is it possible that these three are the only three we know about or that have been revealed to us? Is it possible we're missing more manifestations?

Heck, maybe it was just a mistranslation in the Bible. Who knows?

I tend to think that we all embody the spirit of God and thus the Trinity is inherently flawed, for God is in reality a Multitude of Us. But that's personal opinion.

Three, and multiples of three, is a mystical number in almost all religions. You have, for instance, the Triple Goddes - Maiden, Mother and Crone. It's not meant to be a reality, but symbolism for aspects of humanity.

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

I have to agree.

Dude, not cool.

Neither is the OP's screen breaking model, do you think you could fix that Zilam?

...that was screen-breaking? How was it screen-breaking?

...that was screen-breaking? How was it screen-breaking?

On my monitor the original went off the edge of the screen and caused all kinds of formating problems with other peoples posts.

If God can be a Trinity, why not even more? Why limit Himself to three?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious. Why three? Is it possible that these three are the only three we know about or that have been revealed to us? Is it possible we're missing more manifestations?

Heck, maybe it was just a mistranslation in the Bible. Who knows?

I tend to think that we all embody the spirit of God and thus the Trinity is inherently flawed, for God is in reality a Multitude of Us. But that's personal opinion.

There are many very early copies in existence of books of the NT (or fragments) so if you learn biblical greek, you CAN go have a look. I intend to, at some point.

But not just yet.

I know that many branches of Christianity have their own model, but I think I made one( i think i made it up) that fits better.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/mymodeloftrinity.jpg

What do you theologians think? Any merit to it? Its showing that the God head is not three seperate entities, but just showing how we can make three different names up for what God does.Which god are you talking about? Horus the Elder?

A more accurate rendition:
.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................Indeed.

If God can be a Trinity, why not even more? Why limit Himself to three?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious. Why three? Is it possible that these three are the only three we know about or that have been revealed to us? Is it possible we're missing more manifestations?

Heck, maybe it was just a mistranslation in the Bible. Who knows?

I tend to think that we all embody the spirit of God and thus the Trinity is inherently flawed, for God is in reality a Multitude of Us. But that's personal opinion.Indeed. Look at the Egyptian gods. They had a multitude of manifestations, Jesus could have been just one of them. And do we really know he was referring to the braindead fabricated Jewish god when he was talking about his "father" ? He could have meant Atum just as well, or Djehuty, or Ptah...

I know that many branches of Christianity have their own model, but I think I made one( i think i made it up) that fits better.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/mymodeloftrinity.jpg

What do you theologians think? Any merit to it? Its showing that the God head is not three seperate entities, but just showing how we can make three different names up for what God does.

Theologically, it seems to say the same thing that the OT and NT do when put together. I am dubious as to whether any diagram can properly convey the Trinity, but yours is as good as any.

Indeed. Look at the Egyptian gods. They had a multitude of manifestations, Jesus could have been just one of them. And do we really know he was referring to the braindead fabricated Jewish god when he was talking about his "father" ? He could have meant Atum just as well, or Djehuty, or Ptah...

He was Jewish, lived in what is now Israel, and made references to Jewish law...

He was most definitely referring to the God of Old Testament fame.

He was Jewish, lived in what is now Israel, and made references to Jewish law...
He was most definitely referring to the God of Old Testament fame.Well, we have no direct record of what he did and less of what he said.
And who is the god of the Old Testament? We can not be sure, because prior to the Old Testament existing there was no worship of a god as the Old Testament suggests. Maybe Jesus was referring to Yah, but then he would be son of Asherah and brother of Baal...

On my monitor the original went off the edge of the screen and caused all kinds of formating problems with other peoples posts.

You either have a small monitor or you need to change the resolution.

'Course I'm operating at 1280x1024 so what do I know, eh?

Anyway, as for the Trinity...I think I like Zilam's model, personally. 'Course I'm an athiest, but from an academic standpoint it does have merit.

Well, we have no direct record of what he did and less of what he said.
And who is the god of the Old Testament? We can not be sure, because prior to the Old Testament existing there was no worship of a god as the Old Testament suggests. Maybe Jesus was referring to Yah, but then he would be son of Asherah and brother of Baal...

That would depend on your point of view regarding the reliability of the Bible, a topic on which we are both certain to disagree. The Abrahamic religions (which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in order of appearance) can be viewed in the context of a non-judaic region, but nevertheless as sharing many commonalities as one would expect. Many pottery shards have found bastardised versions of Judaism being espoused, for example.

Nevertheless, accounts of Jesus' life and actions are perhaps the most accurate of any historical event we have. That is from both Biblical and (more importantly from a non-Christian's perspective) non-Biblical sources who agree in the vast majority of instances.

There is, in fact, better evidence for Jesus than there is for most of the Roman Emperors.

To run with the evidence we have, Jesus is most definitely referring to the God of the Jews, as espoused in the OT. Not Baal. Not Horus. Not Asherah. Not Tiamat.

Unless one is arguing for a giant conspiracy theory where Loki is fooling us all, I'd advocate running with the evidence we have.

That would depend on your point of view regarding the reliability of the Bible, a topic on which we are both certain to disagree. The Abrahamic religions (which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam, in order of appearance) can be viewed in the context of a non-judaic region, but nevertheless as sharing many commonalities as one would expect. Many pottery shards have found bastardised versions of Judaism being espoused, for example.What pottery shards and what "bastardised" versions of Judaism? And from what time?
And are you suggesting that Judaism was the real thing and all other religions who had any similar features are bastardised versions of it? Like the entire Mesopotamian pantheon being only an anomaly of Judaism? Get real.

Nevertheless, accounts of Jesus' life and actions are perhaps the most accurate of any historical event we have. That is from both Biblical and (more importantly from a non-Christian's perspective) non-Biblical sources who agree in the vast majority of instances.
There is, in fact, better evidence for Jesus than there is for most of the Roman Emperors. For his existence maybe, but certainly not for his words.

To run with the evidence we have, Jesus is most definitely referring to the God of the Jews, as espoused in the OT. Not Baal. Not Horus. Not Asherah. Not Tiamat.Who is the god of the Jews? Did he just pop into existence when the OT was written?

Unless one is arguing for a giant conspiracy theory where Loki is fooling us all, I'd advocate running with the evidence we have.What evidence? Basically all there is, is the bible. And that's just the writings of a handful of fanatics...

What pottery shards and what "bastardised" versions of Judaism? And from what time?
And are you suggesting that Judaism was the real thing and all other religions who had any similar features are bastardised versions of it? Like the entire Mesopotamian pantheon being only an anomaly of Judaism? Get real.


I am suggesting no such thing. I apologise if I gave the impression. What I was implying was that while there was a degree of crss-polination, judaism was nevertheless quite distinct.



For his existence maybe, but certainly not for his words.


A common misconception. The eyewitness accounts do offer fairly good insight into what he said and did. That we deny the existence of that evidence is an interesting facet of the human character, not a reference to the availability or quality of the evidence. I'll be happy to telegram you my arguments, if you wish, as some are rather personal, and I'd rather keep those ones out of the public eye, as I said to Risi yesterday.



Who is the god of the Jews? Did he just pop into existence when the OT was written?


The OT was written in several stages, with the first writer being Moses, who codified existing Abrahamic acceptance of God, and that which he attributed to the word of God. Eqyptian accounts from the reign of the Pharoah Tutankhamun (also known as Tutankhaten) shed some remarkable insight into the events of the Book of Exodus, as an aside...

King David wrote the psalms, Solomon the proverbs. Other books are accounts of prophet's lives (usually written AFTER the prophecies have been shown to be correct).


What evidence? Basically all there is, is the bible. And that's just the writings of a handful of fanatics...

The Talmud says this:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112:
They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of foodbut food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Quoted from: Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Tacitus, the source for most of our info on the Roman Emperors mentions him numerous times...

Flavius Josephus (a Jewish Historian who was a Roman Collaborator) mentions many Biblical persons in direct corroboration to the NT.

Lucian (Greek writer and orator, from around 120 AD) said:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this daythe distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Quoted ifrom: Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

These people obviously were not Christian, but their existence, words and commentary lend great credence to the accounts put forward in the New Testament of Jesus' life, words, actions and interractions.


The evidence is there. People as a rule are just more comfortable not looking at it, and saying that it isn't there. I know. I was in the same boat for a long time.

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................


I think you have the 'Nonsense' where the 'Not real' should be. So if you fancy a twenty page debate offering no evidence but merely mentioning obscure early documents I am up for it. I also think the number of angels you can fit on the head of a pin is precisely 12.34.

What is the point of this endless theological debate - it never gets anywhere or proves anything nor can it.

I am suggesting no such thing. I apologise if I gave the impression. What I was implying was that while there was a degree of crss-polination, judaism was nevertheless quite distinct.How? More sacrificial slaughter of animals than anyone else? And whose Judaism?

A common misconception. The eyewitness accounts do offer fairly good insight into what he said and did. That we deny the existence of that evidence is an interesting facet of the human character, not a reference to the availability or quality of the evidence. I'll be happy to telegram you my arguments, if you wish, as some are rather personal, and I'd rather keep those ones out of the public eye, as I said to Risi yesterday.What eyewitness accounts? Iirr, the only eyewitness writing in the Bible is that of Peter.

The OT was written in several stages, with the first writer being Moses, who codified existing Abrahamic acceptance of God, and that which he attributed to the word of God. Eqyptian accounts from the reign of the Pharoah Tutankhamun (also known as Tutankhaten) shed some remarkable insight into the events of the Book of Exodus, as an aside...

King David wrote the psalms, Solomon the proverbs. Other books are accounts of prophet's lives (usually written AFTER the prophecies have been shown to be correct).The OT was written by Jewish "scholars" during the rule of the Ptolemies. There is no hint at all that any of its content predates the Ptolemaic era more than 200 years, i.e. there is no hint that anything like Judaism really existed prior to the end of the "Babylonian Captivity".
And what Eqyptian accounts from the reign of the irrelevant boy-king Tutankhamun do you have?

The Talmud says this:
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"

Pliny the Younger, governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112:
They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of foodbut food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Quoted from: Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

Tacitus, the source for most of our info on the Roman Emperors mentions him numerous times...

Flavius Josephus (a Jewish Historian who was a Roman Collaborator) mentions many Biblical persons in direct corroboration to the NT.

Lucian (Greek writer and orator, from around 120 AD) said:
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this daythe distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Quoted ifrom: Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.

These people obviously were not Christian, but their existence, words and commentary lend great credence to the accounts put forward in the New Testament of Jesus' life, words, actions and interractions.

The evidence is there. People as a rule are just more comfortable not looking at it, and saying that it isn't there. I know. I was in the same boat for a long time.You only presented evidence for Jesus and his followers existing, so now what? That is evidence that he claimed to be divine? Or that he is indeed divine?

If God can be a Trinity, why not even more? Why limit Himself to three?

I'm not being a smartass, I'm genuinely curious. Why three? Is it possible that these three are the only three we know about or that have been revealed to us? Is it possible we're missing more manifestations?

Heck, maybe it was just a mistranslation in the Bible. Who knows?

I tend to think that we all embody the spirit of God and thus the Trinity is inherently flawed, for God is in reality a Multitude of Us. But that's personal opinion.

*Shrug* there's religious precedent. I'm not 100% but I think the Druid Goddess Hecate (the Three-in-One) predates Christianity.

I know that many branches of Christianity have their own model, but I think I made one( i think i made it up) that fits better.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/mymodeloftrinity.jpg

What do you theologians think? Any merit to it? Its showing that the God head is not three seperate entities, but just showing how we can make three different names up for what God does.

the problem as i see it is that in the bible they arent aspects or roles but actual different "people".

jesus is getting baptised, the holy spirit descends from heaven in the form of a dove and god the father speaks from heaven proclaiming jesus to be his son. 3 different guys.

jesus prays to god the father. the holy spirit comes as an entity on pentacost. 3 different guys.

If you want an answer that can be interpreted both seriously and smart-ass, depending on where you stand, here it is: The God of Christianity is supposed to be omnipotent. As such, He has no trouble being both Three and One at the same time. The fact that your human understanding is too limited to comprehend this is not God's fault. Thus all possible logical and theological objections are summarily swept under the carpet.

Mind you, I'm no longer Christian myself. But I grew up Catholic, and the Church would have no trouble at all with the statement I made above. A good Catholic can always fall back on "it's a mystery".

These days, I have no trouble with the Divinity being any number you like, because we're all One in the end. It's actually not a mystery, just a misconception.

the problem as i see it is that in the bible they arent aspects or roles but actual different "people".

jesus is getting baptised, the holy spirit descends from heaven in the form of a dove and god the father speaks from heaven proclaiming jesus to be his son. 3 different guys.

jesus prays to god the father. the holy spirit comes as an entity on pentacost. 3 different guys.

Maybe this is more easy to understand as far as the relationship between the earthly jesus and the spiritual God:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/trinity2.jpg

in that picture we have to realise that the spirit of Jesus, the redemption side of God, is not the same as human Jesus. Human Jesus is perfect man but with the spirt of redemption from God. Now since this man was only a man, he could pray to God. But then, when he was about to die, he was "transformed" somehow and then he died and the spirit of redemption went back to God.

I think that makes sense.

Maybe this is more easy to understand as far as the relationship between the earthly jesus and the spiritual God:

http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/trinity2.jpg

in that picture we have to realise that the spirit of Jesus, the redemption side of God, is not the same as human Jesus. Human Jesus is perfect man but with the spirt of redemption from God. Now since this man was only a man, he could pray to God. But then, when he was about to die, he was "transformed" somehow and then he died and the spirit of redemption went back to God.

I think that makes sense.


there was an early cult of christianity called the docetists who believed that the divine spirit of god, known as "christ" was seperate from the human known as "jesus". it was at jesus' baptism where the 2 joined and that is why god chose then to declare that jesus was his son in whom he was well pleased--before that moment jesus had NOT been his son. after that time jesus was able to perform miracles due to his new status as christ.

on the cross, the christ spirit left him and only the mortal jesus died. "my god why have you forsaken me" reflects the moment when the christ spirit left him.

I know that many branches of Christianity have their own model, but I think I made one( i think i made it up) that fits better.


http://i11.photobucket.com/albums/a192/piggy_g87/mymodeloftrinity.jpg

What do you theologians think? Any merit to it? Its showing that the God head is not three seperate entities, but just showing how we can make three different names up for what God does.


It's as reasonable as anything else.

zilam, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

you dont have the education at this point to make such theological analyses. if you are interested in changing the basic tenets of christianity you need to study theology, ancient languages, ancient history, comparative religion, at a top notch university

if you just make things up as you go you run the risk of ending up like david koresh or joseph smith (apologies to our mormon posters) stuck in unsupported heresy.

zilam, why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

you dont have the education at this point to make such theological analyses. if you are interested in changing the basic tenets of christianity you need to study theology, ancient languages, ancient history, comparative religion, at a top notch university

if you just make things up as you go you run the risk of ending up like david koresh or joseph smith (apologies to our mormon posters) stuck in unsupported heresy.

Im not trying to reinvent anything. I am looking at it in the way I can understand it and make sense of it. There is no scripture saying it has to be "x" way and not "y" way. Besides, its not like i believe that this really matters much to christianity, since making something like this as a law(which the church has sort of done) is about the same as what the pharisees and saducees were doing, making their faith into a religion.

But like i said, since this thought does exist in Xtian thought, i thought i'd make a model to what makes most sense to me.

Im not trying to reinvent anything. I am looking at it in the way I can understand it and make sense of it. There is no scripture saying it has to be "x" way and not "y" way. Besides, its not like i believe that this really matters much to christianity, since making something like this as a law(which the church has sort of done) is about the same as what the pharisees and saducees were doing, making their faith into a religion.

But like i said, since this thought does exist in Xtian thought, i thought i'd make a model to what makes most sense to me.

you are reinventing the wheel. you are not explaining the trinity to yourself, you are making up a version of the trinity that makes most sense to you.

there is no scripture specifically outlining the trinity BUT all versions of the trinity must have a scriptural basis and not be in violation of scripture.

the trinity has been worked on for centuries by those more well versed in scripture than you are (or i am). if you are going to deny the accepted version, you have to have a compelling reason. "it makes sense to me" is not really an acceptable reason for a christian.

in the distant past when groups like the docetists decided on a dual entity jesus they justified it by making up their own gospels and gospel versions that supported their beliefs. they didnt just say "this is how it makes best sense to me" and leave it at that.

if you deviate from the scriptures you may as well be shirley mcclaine taking bits and pieces of different religions and sticking them together willynilly.

you are reinventing the wheel. you are not explaining the trinity to yourself, you are making up a version of the trinity that makes most sense to you.

there is no scripture specifically outlining the trinity BUT all versions of the trinity must have a scriptural basis and not be in violation of scripture.


Why?

Why?

the scriptures are the revealed word of god. not inerrant, not all encompassing, just revealed. it is the basis for all christian belief. everything you need to know in order to have a good relationship with god and to achieve salvation is in the bible.

it is accepted by christian believers that the scriptures are TRUE even if they are allegories or need to be interpreted. there is nothing false in the bible.

so if your version of christianity is at odds with scripture it is YOU who is wrong, not scripture.

sure you can just make stuff up. plenty of people have. but if it cant be justified by the scriptures, its false.

if youre not a christian none of that matters eh?

I think the answer is simple. There is one God and the so called trinity are just a few of the different parts or aspects of that one. The Bible says that man is God's image so let's look at it that way. The "father" is like the brain or head. It rules over the rest of the body but is rather worthless without the rest. The "creator' part is like the hands. We can say that the hands are doing something while still knowing they are attached to a body. The aspect that became the Jesus of 30 years is like looking at a picture of hands creating a sculpture. The rest isn't in the picture but we know the hands don't operate on their own. The third part is like the emotions. We don't see them but we know they are there.

And I don't limit God to three aspects. A person can be many things at the same time, why can't God. I'm a son, husband, father, farmer, teacher, friend, etc. all at the same time. These can be talked of separately as if I'm many people. Yet I remain one. This doesn't seem that difficult to me.

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

Works fer me....

the scriptures are the revealed word of god. not inerrant, not all encompassing, just revealed. it is the basis for all christian belief. everything you need to know in order to have a good relationship with god and to achieve salvation is in the bible.

it is accepted by christian believers that the scriptures are TRUE even if they are allegories or need to be interpreted. there is nothing false in the bible.

so if your version of christianity is at odds with scripture it is YOU who is wrong, not scripture.

sure you can just make stuff up. plenty of people have. but if it cant be justified by the scriptures, its false.

if youre not a christian none of that matters eh?

So basically because "My book says so" then?

So basically because "My book says so" then?

when youre talking about a subject as esoteric as the trinity its "my book implies so"

but if it cant be justified by the scriptures, its false.how so?

how so?

thats the way christianity works

thats the way christianity worksaccording to who?

according to who?

christians

christiansbut the churches evolved out of the community that Yeshua founded (at least the catholic and other orthodox ones). there was no scripture or knowledge thereof required. for them scripture was only a nice addition but not essential. since when is christianity limited what's justifiable through scripture?

christians

All of them?

but the churches evolved out of the community that Yeshua founded (at least the catholic and other orthodox ones). there was no scripture or knowledge thereof required. for them scripture was only a nice addition but not essential. since when is christianity limited what's justifiable through scripture?

since the first nicaean conference

All of them?

yeah

christianity is a revealed religion. even when you are in a denomination that doesnt emphasize the reading of the bible, everything they believe is justified by scripture.

this is why you see evangelicals quoting stuff out of the bible all the time. the verses justify the point they are making. if you want to refute them you have to pull out your own bible and quote your own scripture making your point.

since the first nicaean conferenceand christians did not exist prior?

yeah

christianity is a revealed religion. even when you are in a denomination that doesnt emphasize the reading of the bible, everything they believe is justified by scripture.

this is why you see evangelicals quoting stuff out of the bible all the time. the verses justify the point they are making. if you want to refute them you have to pull out your own bible and quote your own scripture making your point.
will they only accept the bible as scripture?

The Nicean conference was the codiification and acceptance of practices already in place. There were no revolutionary changes, just the accounts and letters that the churches of the Meditterranean had been using for centuries were accepted as Holy writ in a formal sense.

There were obviously Christians before then, but prior to Nicea there was some disagreement in some of the 'fringe churches' about what books could be regarded as the revealed word of God.

Other early Christian writings exist, such as the Epistles of Augustine, but they are not regarded as scripture.

I'm going to put you on my ignore list. Feel privelaged. You are the first one to really get on my nerves. You have a full and prosperous life sir. :)

He gets on everybody's nerves.

No, Zilam. Here is the concept of god, properly explained.
(http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3010/godchartgi0.png)
Warning: Image may offend

No, Zilam. Here is the concept of god, properly explained.
(http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3010/godchartgi0.png)
Warning: Image may offend


Worthy of a chuckle, but demeaning, belittling and also, in my humble opinion, far from accurate.

You did warn us, however.

It constantly baffles me that so many profess that there can be no proof, and yet, there is...

Like an episode of Law and Order, where the suspect says "you've got no evidence"... but there is evidence...

The Nicean conference was the codiification and acceptance of practices already in place. There were no revolutionary changes, just the accounts and letters that the churches of the Meditterranean had been using for centuries were accepted as Holy writ in a formal sense.

There were obviously Christians before then, but prior to Nicea there was some disagreement in some of the 'fringe churches' about what books could be regarded as the revealed word of God.

Other early Christian writings exist, such as the Epistles of Augustine, but they are not regarded as scripture.but when the very first christians set out there were yet no gospels, no epistles, nothing to refer to as scripture in the christian sense. so christianity obviously did NOT depend on scripture. christianity then solely depended on the teachings and blessings passed on from one person to the next. that's btw what the catholic church still dwells on and why there are so many traditions with no real basis in scripture. obviously not all that can't be justified by the scriptures, is false.

Worthy of a chuckle, but demeaning, belittling and also, in my humble opinion, far from accurate.

You did warn us, however.

It constantly baffles me that so many profess that there can be no proof, and yet, there is...

Like an episode of Law and Order, where the suspect says "you've got no evidence"... but there is evidence...

Depends on how accurate you think that evidence is. When you look at it, there's an equivalent amount of evidence for both the Judeo-Christian YHWH as there is for Brahma and the Om. So how do you then say "Well this one's gotta be the right one," in any sort of truly objective sense?

No, Zilam. Here is the concept of god, properly explained.
(http://img79.imageshack.us/img79/3010/godchartgi0.png)
Warning: Image may offenduntil now only the right side is proven accurate. :p

St. Patrick's idea (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/clip/shamrock.gif) was better.

and christians did not exist prior?

sure did.

but since WE dont, it doesnt much matter.

sure did.
but since WE dont, it doesnt much matter.??
so being validly christian meant something different before and afterwards?

St. Patrick's idea (http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/icons/clip/shamrock.gif) was better.

that is not a chart, and it is not related to "God"

The Nicean conference was the codiification and acceptance of practices already in place. There were no revolutionary changes, just the accounts and letters that the churches of the Meditterranean had been using for centuries were accepted as Holy writ in a formal sense.

There were obviously Christians before then, but prior to Nicea there was some disagreement in some of the 'fringe churches' about what books could be regarded as the revealed word of God.

Other early Christian writings exist, such as the Epistles of Augustine, but they are not regarded as scripture.

well it was the practice of SOME that got codified. there were many other sects of various sizes that believed a variety of things. many (most? all?) had their own gospels, epistles and apocalypses that they used as scripture in the same way we use our own scripture today.

its a fascinating subject with few solid answers since those scriptures were brutally supressed after the council.

??
so being validly christian meant something different before and afterwards?

yup

but those fights were fought long ago and arent relevant to us today for the most part.

Depends on how accurate you think that evidence is. When you look at it, there's an equivalent amount of evidence for both the Judeo-Christian YHWH as there is for Brahma and the Om. So how do you then say "Well this one's gotta be the right one," in any sort of truly objective sense?

I would disagree. I wasn't always a Christian, but became so after being challenged to examine the evidence.

Anyone that tells you "just believe" is deluding you. Faith without reason is stupidity.

United Belarialand, the first Christians could say "this is what He said" from memory. But they were smart enough to know that oral traditions can become corrupted, so they wrote it down.

Over time that can be an issue as well, but fortunately we still have very early manuscripts that we can check with...

yup
but those fights were fought long ago and arent relevant to us today for the most part.yes they are. they define the necessity of scripture. if at one point justification by scripture was not necessary and at another point it was, then at least one of those approaches is wrong. and since christiaity evolved out of a state with no scripture which is thus the natural and original setting for christianity, it is logically the latter approach that's wrong.

I would disagree. I wasn't always a Christian, but became so after being challenged to examine the evidence. what evidence? You have EVIDENCE ? you should be made pope... :p

Anyone that tells you "just believe" is deluding you. Faith without reason is stupidity. Faith is the absence of reason.

United Beleriand, the first Christians could say "this is what He said" from memory. But they were smart enough to know that oral traditions can become corrupted, so they wrote it down.Or just because it is easier to set a written word against a vaguely remembered word...

Over time that can be an issue as well, but fortunately we still have very early manuscripts that we can check with...yeah, manuscript varying greatly in contents. and a multitude of manuscripts that are just as ancient but were not included into the bible. obviously they didn't fit into the theology the early church leaders wanted to evolve.

that is not a chart, and it is not related to "God"how can you possibly know this is not a chart of "God" ?

yes they are. they define the necessity of scripture. if at one point justification by scripture was not necessary and at another point it was, then at least one of those approaches is wrong. and since christiaity evolved out of a state with no scripture which is thus the natural and original setting for christianity, it is logically the latter approach that's wrong.

no no they all had scriptures. some were the same as we have today. some were uniquely their own. they used these scriptures the same way we use them now. thats the big reason that after the council of nicaea they were collected up and destroyed.

today we have mostly only partial copies of the various books they used. books like the gospel of judas that they had a tv show about last year.

the only time there were no scriptures were at the extreme beginning when groups were being started and paul was going around converting people. then they used oral "scriptures". after a while various authors (unknown to us today) wrote them down.

no no they all had scriptures. some were the same as we have today. some were uniquely their own. they used these scriptures the same way we use them now. thats the big reason that after the council of nicaea they were collected up and destroyed.

today we have mostly only partial copies of the various books they used. books like the gospel of judas that they had a tv show about last year.

the only time there were no scriptures were at the extreme beginning when groups were being started and paul was going around converting people. then they used oral "scriptures". after a while various authors (unknown to us today) wrote them down.so you say that if something can be justified by scripture, it is true. but changing scripture is ok as well. so basically all is just arbitrary. but true somehow.
very convincing...

after a while various authors (unknown to us today) wrote them down.strange, ain't it?

so you say that if something can be justified by scripture, it is true. but changing scripture is ok as well. so basically all is just arbitrary. but true somehow.
very convincing...

strange, ain't it?

im not trying to convince you of anything. im just telling you the way it works.

its not really strange that we dont know the names of men (or women) who did not choose to put their name on the text they wrote about the life of jesus.

how valid it all is, how accurately they jotted down the stories, how accurate our modern versions are and whether or not they chose the correct scriptures are up for debate i suppose. the answers dont much matter to me and cant be all that relevant to people who have taken the scriptures on faith as it is.

I would disagree. I wasn't always a Christian, but became so after being challenged to examine the evidence.

Anyone that tells you "just believe" is deluding you. Faith without reason is stupidity.

United Belarialand, the first Christians could say "this is what He said" from memory. But they were smart enough to know that oral traditions can become corrupted, so they wrote it down.

Over time that can be an issue as well, but fortunately we still have very early manuscripts that we can check with...

It's still subjective. I've looked, honestly looked, at the evidence presented for Christianity, and I've found it wanting.

I would disagree. I wasn't always a Christian, but became so after being challenged to examine the evidence.

So provide us with the "evidence" that changed your mind.

It's still subjective. I've looked, honestly looked, at the evidence presented for Christianity, and I've found it wanting.

im with you. there is nothing special about christianity that makes it more true than any other religion. its all a matter of upbringing and what speaks to you personally, not objective truth.

but when the very first christians set out there were yet no gospels, no epistles, nothing to refer to as scripture in the christian sense. so christianity obviously did NOT depend on scripture. christianity then solely depended on the teachings and blessings passed on from one person to the next. that's btw what the catholic church still dwells on and why there are so many traditions with no real basis in scripture. obviously not all that can't be justified by the scriptures, is false.

One of the interesting things about reading the "Lost Books" is that a lot of those traditions are in the books that didn't make it into cannon scripture. So they were obviously accepted when those traditions got started.

until now only the right side is proven accurate. :p

what do you mean?

One of the interesting things about reading the "Lost Books" is that a lot of those traditions are in the books that didn't make it into cannon scripture. So they were obviously accepted when those traditions got started.See?

...and it is really canon scripture... ;)

what do you mean?what i said.

I would disagree. I wasn't always a Christian, but became so after being challenged to examine the evidence.

Anyone that tells you "just believe" is deluding you. Faith without reason is stupidity.

United Belarialand, the first Christians could say "this is what He said" from memory. But they were smart enough to know that oral traditions can become corrupted, so they wrote it down.

Over time that can be an issue as well, but fortunately we still have very early manuscripts that we can check with...

The first 'christian' scripture wasn't written until a generation after the events it is intended to describe - if those events even really happened.

I'm not sure I can place too much faith in a journal written even a year after the events it describes - let alone thirty years, or more.

Also, of course, most of the biblical text we have is Pauline - written by a man (or the follwoers of a man) who never met the earthly incarnation of Jesus. Again - I'm not sure how much faith should be put in such testimony.

Last point - we have different evidence of gospel scriptures. The versions we have today often don't match with earlier versions. Sometimes this is a small thing (like verses that have 'migrated' from one book to a parallel account in another book... not especially problematic) but sometimes it is a big thing - like the 'Great Commission' texts that have been added on to the original texts (Matthew being key here, since the 'Great Commission' text in Matthew doesn't fit the rest of the narrative, and, in fact, opposes the entire message of that Gospel).

There are so many things that became tradition out of ignorance. For instance--a biggie--and interesting this time of year---if the gospels are read carefully, Jesus was killed on Wednesday not Friday. The confusion came when the gentiles which made up the church didn't understand the term "Sabbath" and assumed that only Saturday could be a Sabbath. In actuality, the high feasts were Sabbaths. John says that the day Jesus was killed was before a "High Day"--probably the feast of the unleavened bread. John 19:31

So we would have three days and three nights. Wed, Thur, Fri nights, and Thur Fri, Sat Days--arising at sundown Saturday night. Gone on Sunday morning. there is also the problem of when the women bought and prepared spices if he died on Friday. Certainly they could not buy and prepare on Saturday. With a Wed death, Thur High Sabbath, then they could buy and prepare on Fri, the Sat Sabbath so Sunday was the first chance to deliver.

It's things like this that force a person to look at the foundations and not at the details of any religion. The foundations of all the major religions are the same, we only argue about the details.

The foundations of all the major religions are the same, we only argue about the details.No. The conceptual differences are huge. Although it is now fashionable to claim that all religions are just guises of the same worship of a supreme (and, um, christian) god, it is not so.

There are so many things that became tradition out of ignorance. For instance--a biggie--and interesting this time of year---if the gospels are read carefully, Jesus was killed on Wednesday not Friday. The confusion came when the gentiles which made up the church didn't understand the term "Sabbath" and assumed that only Saturday could be a Sabbath. In actuality, the high feasts were Sabbaths. John says that the day Jesus was killed was before a "High Day"--probably the feast of the unleavened bread. John 19:31

So we would have three days and three nights. Wed, Thur, Fri nights, and Thur Fri, Sat Days--arising at sundown Saturday night. Gone on Sunday morning. there is also the problem of when the women bought and prepared spices if he died on Friday. Certainly they could not buy and prepare on Saturday. With a Wed death, Thur High Sabbath, then they could buy and prepare on Fri, the Sat Sabbath so Sunday was the first chance to deliver.

It's things like this that force a person to look at the foundations and not at the details of any religion. The foundations of all the major religions are the same, we only argue about the details.


the interesting part about that to ME is that if the original christians were jewish they never would have made that mistake. in theory there were quite a few jewish evangelists wandering around converting people to the new faith. both peter and paul had quite a following around the mediterranean who they wrote letters to outlining proper practice. how did they get the crucifiction on the wrong day? (esp since peter was there and would have known what day it was)

the interesting part about that to ME is that if the original christians were jewish they never would have made that mistake. in theory there were quite a few jewish evangelists wandering around converting people to the new faith. both peter and paul had quite a following around the mediterranean who they wrote letters to outlining proper practice. how did they get the crucifiction on the wrong day? (esp since peter was there and would have known what day it was)maybe peter got so stone drunk afterwards that he couldn't remember? ...
and he had no influence on the gospels anyways

I'm going to put you on my ignore list. Feel privelaged. You are the first one to really get on my nerves. You have a full and prosperous life sir. :)
I don't think your should do that.

On hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick. I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

the interesting part about that to ME is that if the original christians were jewish they never would have made that mistake. in theory there were quite a few jewish evangelists wandering around converting people to the new faith. both peter and paul had quite a following around the mediterranean who they wrote letters to outlining proper practice. how did they get the crucifiction on the wrong day? (esp since peter was there and would have known what day it was)

The rules, regulations, holy days weren't set by the original Jewish Christians. That all came later. The church didn't remain predominately Jewish for long. The power of decision went to the gentiles. That's one of the reasons the majority of the NT is made up of books by Paul....the Apostle to the Gentiles. The book of Hebrews was almost left out of the cannon because by the time the cannon was chosen there were so few Hebrews.

Go through the crucification stories, start with palm Sunday, note when it says Jesus left town and when he returned. Remember the trial took place at night (Tues-Wed night) You will come up with Wednesday. The only way to get to Friday is to say nothing happened on a day or two. Not likely.

Also study the Jewish feasts. Note their placement in relation to the Holy Week.

A more accurate rendition:


.............................................................................
................................Nonsense ---------> Made up.....
................................/......\.....................................
............................../..........\...................................
............................/..............\.................................
.......................Imaginary........Not real.......................
.............................................................................

That, my friend, is full of win. You know something? This is the first time I've laughed out loud all day!

*hands you a box of special Hashijuana cookies*

What do you theologians think? Any merit to it? Its showing that the God head is not three seperate entities, but just showing how we can make three different names up for what God does.
It is interesting, but it is trinity within duality, which I think defeats the purpose of the trinity.

While I disagree with a great many Christians, I don't feel the need to mock them unless they are demonstrably stupid. I feel the same way about atheists.

What do you disagree with them about?

The rules, regulations, holy days weren't set by the original Jewish Christians. That all came later. The church didn't remain predominately Jewish for long. The power of decision went to the gentiles. That's one of the reasons the majority of the NT is made up of books by Paul....the Apostle to the Gentiles. The book of Hebrews was almost left out of the cannon because by the time the cannon was chosen there were so few Hebrews.

Go through the crucification stories, start with palm Sunday, note when it says Jesus left town and when he returned. Remember the trial took place at night (Tues-Wed night) You will come up with Wednesday. The only way to get to Friday is to say nothing happened on a day or two. Not likely.

Also study the Jewish feasts. Note their placement in relation to the Holy Week.


ive heard that before. it never mattered much to me so i forget the details. im still flummoxed by the date of easter being fluid but not coinciding with passover.

I don't think your should do that.

Well, I have been reasonable to him, and all he does is follow me around and try to get me angry. So instead of snapping on him in anger, i will just ignore him.